site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   35138 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Paying for preventable catastrophic health bills because of stupid behavior is one thing. Yes, there's some moral hazard in giving a skydiver the same life insurance rate as everyone else, but insurance companies actually look at the risks and decide it's only worth charging more if you're an instructor or other high jump-count enthusiast. And the risk of base jumping will make your insurer laugh in your widow's face if she tries to collect.

But what's worse is the skydiver asking his life insurance to pay for his parachute and training on the theory that him dying by jumping without a parachute would cost them more money. This is the prep situation.
And what's even worse than that is the government forcing the insurer to pay for this (and raise costs on everyone else) because the national skydiving federation somehow became a powerful lobby that dictates government policy.

The sane solution, like we use for skydivers irl, is making paying for prep out of pocket a condition of obtaining health insurance at a base rate, just like not smoking or buying your own parachute before jumping.
If they don't, their insurance is void and we saddle them with non-dischargeable medical debt in exchange for their treatment (or we charge city gays with 6-7 figure incomes an actuarially fair rate for their coverage)

And if people can't deal with this, the only answer is "right, first we eliminate the influence of the national skydiving federation and fire any bureaucrat who had dealings with them. As well as any agency who gave federal grants to the "Chutes Over Chicago 501c" that seems creepily obsessed with holding skydiver storytimes at local kindergartens

But what's worse is the skydiver asking his life insurance to pay for his parachute and training on the theory that him dying by jumping without a parachute would cost them more money.

Isn't that how kidnapping insurance works?

It's not a matter of life insurance rates, when a motorcyclist riding a crotch rocket smashes into a bridge, the ER docs will stitch him back together. When an associate in inner city crime gets shot in the stomach, the same ER is gonna pull the bullet out and patch him up.

It goes well beyond the world of insurance. And it's long past the point of arguing that we should leave the uninsured victims of motorbike crashes to die on the side of the road.

I don't think you read the post, specifically the end of paragraph 3.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats